Posted 5:06 PM by Floyd

Gary Hart is the Blogosphere's 2004 candidate du jour. InstaPundit mentions him almost every day, and Rand Simberg climbed aboard the bandwagon with this post. Though "climb aboard the bandwagon" is too emphatic a metaphor; bloggers who mention Hart appear to be out for a leisurely stroll while they mention that Hart could really give Bush trouble.

It's not clear why Hart inspires this admiration. The explanation is that he is good on "security issues," but I have never heard tell of anything specific that he did. Hey, if I don't get any interviews soon I am going to put "XML" on my resume -- but that doesn't mean I really have the experience.

If you're not an American, you've probably never heard of Gary Hart. Hart -- originally Gary Warren Hartpence, born in 1936 -- was elected Senator from Colorado in 1974. He ran for president in 1984 and was a front-runner until he made a mistake. Responding to rumors that he was a womanizer, he dared the media to catch him at it -- and continued his womanizing. Hart was photographed in the Bahamas with a cute girl named Donna Rice on his lap. The resulting scandal destroyed his candidacy.

(Donna Rice is now 42 years old and "communications director for Enough Is Enough!, an organization crusading against illegal pornography, particularly on the Internet." The mills of God grind slowly, but exceeding fine. Or something.)

Hart served two terms as Senator, from 1975 to 1987. Doesn't it say something about the Democratic presidential field that their candidate with the best national security experience has been absent from public office for over a decade and a half?

While researching this post I came across a couple of interesting documents. First was Hart's official web page. Take a look at the biography, and you will see the soullessness of the modern American politician. First start with the tagline on the upper left: "There is no such thing as an 'average American'."
- Gary Hart. Did Hart write Saturday Night Live's "Deep Thoughts?"

Let's count the cliches in the first paragraph:

In an era of career politicians, Gary Hart has chosen a road less travelled, devoting himself first and foremost to public service and the good of his country. A prolific author, lecturer, teacher, scholar, and attorney, America's newest "elder" statesman is a man on a mission who shows no signs of slowing down.

**********

TalkLeft added a comment to Simberg's post linking to Hart's recent speech to the Council on Foreign Relations. It's not surprising that the speech would excite TalkLeft -- we get to hear about root causes and about how the U.S. uses a quarter of the world's energy -- but there is absolutely no foreign policy, defense, or national security wisdom to be had. Hart's speech contains the restatement of the obvious:

We are indeed in a "revolution of military affairs" largely driven by technology but dependent on intelligence collected and analyzed by humans. Our fighting forces are increasingly directed by and through a complex web of command, control, and communications networks all interwoven and interrelated.

Bleeding-heart crusades:

This new age requires, at the very least, a new definition of security and, to achieve it, a tool-box filled with more than weapons. National security in the 21st century will require economic and political tools, not simply military ones. Trade and aid programs must become more grassroots and human scale than top-down and bureaucratic. For example, micro-loan programs directed at home, land, and small business ownership have proved enormously promising in several countries in Asia and Latin America.

And meaningless stock phrases that no politician would be caught dead without:

War is not an instrument of policy; it is a failure of policy. We cannot here today discuss the use of military power as an instrument of national policy without recognition that it is the lives of our sons and daughters that are most immediately at stake. We all must now earn our rights by performance of our duties. And our duty to our sons and daughters requires our policy makers to hold their lives in sacred trust. Only then will our national security be just as well as strong and only then can we be truly proud of who we are.

I didn't mind the leftism so much; Hart has to run left to get the nomination, then sprint back to the center for the general campaign. But the smarmy monday morning quarterbacking is irritating, for instance:

The preemption approach, moreover, has long-term foreign policy consequences. For example, in Afghanistan, we armed the mujahadeen to fight the Soviets in the 1980s. Then, when the Soviets left, we rode away and the Taliban took over and eventually provided hospitality to al Qaeda.

It's not clear what "preemptive" approach Hart thinks would have solved the Afghan invasion. In any event, it would have been pretty perceptive for US policymakers to take the Taliban into account, given that they did not exist when Afghans were fighting Soviets. When you consider that Hart had his own chance to exercise the smallest amount of caution and prudence when his career was at stake ...

Posted 12:39 PM by Floyd

Steven Den Beste is a smart guy, but sometimes he is shockingly naive. Consider this post from Sunday, in which Den Beste speculates that evidence may come to light that French and German corporations have been covertly aiding Saddam:

Suppose we (the UK and US) ... do actually attack Iraq ...

And suppose, once we've done so, and have occupied Iraq and have full (really full, not UN full) access to Iraq's records and can truly find what they have, that we find that everything we've been saying about their WMDs is really true; that they have chem and bio weapons and banned delivery systems, and are near to developing nukes, which I also think is extremely likely.

One more and the most important: suppose that the records also show that during the 1990's companies in France or Germany (or both) actively and deliberately broke the sanctions and sold equipment and supplies to Iraq which helped it to create these things, and that the governments of Germany and France knew and approved of this and actively helped.

All this is reasonable enough. But now we don our special glasses, strap on our safety belts, and enter Den Beste fantasyland:

I think at that point that anything resembling formal alliance would have to end. The degree of fury this would cause in the American people should not be underestimated, and it would become politically impossible for the US government to continue to treat either nation in a friendly manner. Our relations with them would come to resemble those we have with China if not being worse.

Either the US would formally pull out of NATO or else issue an "either they go or we do" ultimatum to get Germany and France ejected. And all American forces in Germany would leave as soon as they possibly could. (Such forces as we kept in Europe would probably move to either Poland or the Czech Republic, both of which have expressed interest in hosting them.)

But wait -- there's more! (You can't expect Den Beste to be done in only two paragraphs.)

It seems unlikely that this would lead to an immediate and direct war with the US, though formal diplomatic relations would obviously go into the toilet as a result. And even without any formal government action, I think that the European companies involved would find it difficult thereafter to make any business deals in America, and this would cause quite substantial economic havoc, here certainly, but particularly in Europe. In fact, there would be a de facto economic boycott here of the majority of German and French products (and to a lesser extent of other European producers as well, as a practical matter) as the direct result of millions of citizens making their own choices, whether the US government declared formal trade sanctions or not. (Which means that the big winner would be Japan, whose trade with the US would rise. This might well be enough lift them out of their economic malaise and give them the slack to work on the underlying structural problems in their economy.)

This would also really hurt the tourist industries in both nations. That happened to some extent after 9/11 because people feared to fly, but this would be worse and very long lasting, and that too would contribute to a general downturn in their economies. You can basically forget about any significant number of Americans traveling to either nation and spending their dollars there. What you're looking at is the distinct possibility of Europe's economy imploding as a result of cascading failures.

It gets even better:

The biggest question, and the one I'm least able to analyze, would be how German and French voters would react to this. If the voters of both nations immediately repudiated the governments involved, and if new elections in both nations resulted in something other than "meet the new boss, same as the old boss", and if there were immediate criminal investigations against the executives at the corporations in question, then it might be possible to salvage something from the diplomatic wreckage.

But if the voters of either or both nations actually ended up demonstrating approval, or even just apathy, via their voting patterns then you face the possibility that this actually could lead, eventually, to another war in Europe, between nuclear armed powers.

An occupational danger of being an ideologue is that you might believe that everyone shares your views, and with the same fervor. So there are right-wingers who think that everyone despises Clinton, and left-wingers who think that everyone regards Bush the Younger as an idiot and a stooge, and libertarians who think that everyone objects to the drug war. Den Beste's brand of Kool-Aid is his loyalty to America. I don't have any problem with being a patriot, but I do think that Den Beste's beliefs are affecting the flow of oxygen to his brain.

To test the veracity of Den Beste's predictions, let us examine real events that actually occurred in the real world: Namely, the attitude of Americans towards Saudi Arabia. The majority of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi citizens, and it's clear that Saudi Arabia has been sending money to Al Qaeda. We're not talking about evading a blockade; these are people who flew jetliners into buildings and murdered thousands of people.

There are a lot of Americans pissed off at Saudi Arabia. But there has been no mass outcry for a declaration of war, Americans are still buying Saudi oil, and Bush is able to suck up to the Saudis while maintaining high approval ratings. Given this, how can anyone believe that if it were revealed that some French and Germans sneaked Saddam some equipment a few years ago, there would be an end to the tens of billions of dollars in trade with those nations?

My former employer, i2 Technologies, does business in France and Germany. i2 has fallen on very hard times and desperately needs any business they can find. Can anyone really say, with a straight face, that i2 CEO Sanjiv Sidhu would nix a multi-million dollar deal with, say, Alcatel? "We know that this deal was going to make or break the quarter, but some companies in the same nation as Alcatel sold Saddam equipment, and the French government didn't do anything about it, so as a loyal American citizen, I will have to cancel the agreement and lay off another 100 of our employees."

By the way, I noticed when revisiting USS Clueless today that Den Beste had responded to some critics:

Update: At least three people have written to say they thought I was exaggerating the degree to which Americans would be infuriated by this, and wondering if I was deliberately exaggerating for effect. No, I was completely serious, but I guess it wasn't obvious so I'll explain it.

Den Beste then goes on to punish his detractors in the most vicious manner possible: With a four-gigabyte essay on "Jacksonians." (My take on Jacksonians, after much reading and subsequent application of moisturizer to my glazed eyeballs, is this: Jacksonians are people who don't like to be attacked, don't like to be betrayed, and don't like to be insulted. Kind of like ... 90% of all human beings?) Den Beste claims that evidence that some French and German companies sneaked Saddam ball bearings and rocket gyroscopes -- at a time when Saddam was not at war with the US -- would produce the same effect as the Zimmerman Telegram, in which Germany offered Mexico American territory if they would join Germany in an attack against America. Even Michael Jackson isn't crazy enough to believe that.

Posted 11:27 AM by Floyd

Lileks had a very good point today about people who cry "McCarthyism":

Nowadays, if you point out that someone’s a Communist, you might well be accused of - dum dum DUMMMM - McCarthyism. The term has morphed from its original meaning. It no longer means falsely accusing someone of being a Communist. It now includes correctly identifying someone as a Communist, or ascribing a taint to someone because they don’t reject the Communists in their midst. (I’ll admit there’s a significant difference between the two.)

Posted 11:23 AM by Floyd

I'm pro-gun and proud of it. I am a member of the National Rifle Association, and receive their American Rifleman magazine every month. I thought a full-page advertisement in the latest issue -- on page 11 for those keeping score at home -- did not project a good image for gun owners.

The ad was for SureFire's "tactical flashlight" -- "If you keep a gun for self-defense, you need a tactical flashlight." I certainly had no problem with this headline or the way the ad started out:

Armed citizens face a terrible decision when they are threatened -- shoot or don't shoot. Often, you have to decide in the dark, literally, if lethal force is necessary. Is the man shuffling out of the shadows a depraved serial rapist? Or is it a plumber coming to the wrong address? Is that a butcher knife or a cell phone?

But wait. It's the dead of night in the inky blackness of an unlit parking lot. You're walking to your car when a dirt-streaked character suddenly sways into your path. He has a screwdriver in his hand ...

Your hand darts under your jacket to the familiar grip of your carry gun. Already in your other hand, ready, is your SureFire CombatLight(tm). You press the momentary tailcap, sending a dazzling beam of intense bright light into the eyes of the approaching figure.

Blinded, the man throws his hands up to cover his eyes. "Hey, turn that light out," pleads the mechanic in the oil-stained uniform that you now see bears the AAA logo. "I can't see!"

You relax. You lower your CombatLight and remove your hand from under your jacket, knowing the blinding white light has just made your decision easy -- don't shoot the mechanic.

"Don't shoot the mechanic"? Reminds me of South Park -- "Don't kick the baby!" Maybe the same point could have been made in a better way?

A similar ruthlessness was displayed in an inset photo to the left of the text I quoted. A man with scraggly hair and mustache is recoiling from an intense light on his phase. The caption: The NRA says "Identify your target." SureFire saus, "And blind him while you're at it."

Now that I think about it, maybe I don't approve of the product. Isn't blinding someone a more aggressive action than pulling out your gun and saying "Who are you, I'm armed"? Let's put it this way: suppose you are going about your business -- say as a mechanic in an unlit parking lot -- and suddenly someone shines a blinding light on you. Wouldn't this make you feel helpless and endangered? What if the person with the flashlight isn't the only one in the parking lot carrying a gun?

Posted 4:29 PM by Floyd

Via Andrew Sullivan, I saw that "Tacitus" dropped a low-yield nuclear weapon on war-protesting bloggers. He posted grisly pictures of the victims of various tyrannical regimes supported by the Stalinist group ANSWER, organizer of the weekend anti-war rallies. Then he called out protesting bloggers by name and asked them to justify their participation.

You can imagine the ensuing flame war in Tacitus' comments section. (I can but sigh enviously; the only debates in my comments section are about whether a 3N overcall of a weak two should show a running suit.) I was interested in the debate because I was not sure whether Tacitus' monstering was justified. Here are some of the counter-arguments, and my comments thereon:

• Oliver Willis was not shy about expressing his disdain: Your "statement"/spew/bile was the Year 2003 equivalent of "have you know or have you ever been a member of the communist party?" But Tacitus is not an inquisition, with the power to jail Willis or make him lose his job. As a private citizen, Tacitus certainly has the right to ask people if they are Communists, or support Communists, and to call them immoral if they do so. Furthermore the objection to Joe McCarthy was not that he was anti-Communist, but that he fabricated his claims that Commies had infiltrated society and government. If Tacitus said that anti-war organizers and some bloggers were infiltrated by ANSWER, you could criticize him for making sweeping claims with no evidence. But it's a fact that ANSWER organized the marches. And it's a fact that the bloggers he listed chose to attend them.
  
  
• Hank Mylander said Again, these are the same arguments that conservatives used back in the 60's to scare people away from civil rights marches and Vietnam protests. Debate on the issues, warniks. The same issues were present in the 60's, and it was reasonable for people to raise them. Some of the 60's peace marches were pro-Communist, and the Communist regimes in Indochina wound up killing millions of people.
  
  
• I thought Jim Henley (who marched with a sign that said "PEACE NOW! SOCIALISM NEVER!") had a lame excuse: ANSWER are batshit. They're good at applying for permits though. Is it really so difficult or expensive to apply for a permit? It's not like ANSWER is providing a stadium or a TV channel.
  
  
• Here is what I thought to be the best of the counter-arguments, by Stephen Aquila: Tough choice: attend and drive up the numbers at what will certainly be a major event to promote your message, or don't attend and hurt both your own anti-war cause and ANSWER simultaneously. Given the lack of reporting about ANSWER in the mainstream media noted by Instapundit, the people who attended may have simply believed that, at least to the vast majority of the country that does watch the news but has never heard of ANSWER, their non-presence would indicate only approval of the war, not disapproval of ANSWER. But I have to ask, if a Nazi organization were to sponsor an anti-war rally, would all the anti-war people in America say, "I need to attend or else people will think that I am pro-war"?
  

Let's examine those last two arguments again. Henley and Aquila acknowledge that there is a moral problem with attending an ANSWER-sponsored rally. They believe that their choices are to attend ANSWER's party or stay home. But why not sponsor their own march? There seems to be an assumption that 10,000 protesters are ten times better than 1,000 and a hundred times better than 100. Isn't the underlying message more important than the number of people saying it?

Here is what a Tacitus commenter had to say about the protests:

Expanding on my statement to JimHenley. I worked yesterday. We have monitors about usually set to the company news, but that folks usually set to CNN when working the weekends. There were a great many 'what assholes' comments when the various placards were show. A lot of these comments came from folks that normally would not have made such comments. People whose open politics had them starting the day in support of the protests, and ending slightly green over them.

I wouldn't assume that the protests will add to the anti-war ranks quite yet.

Attending a large protest may not be the most effective way of spreading the anti-war message. It may look impressive to be seen with lots of people, but you're also being seen with a lot of morally offensive nuts. Also, while the media may cover your large protest, they are sure to focus on the most outlandish elements. It won't matter that there are fifty moderate slogans for every red-white-and-blue swaztika, because the television reports will show the swaztika and leave out the less inflammatory stuff.

Finally, consider this: Large protests are yesterday's news. They were fresh and exciting in the 60's; now they are a cliche. Regardless of your moral judgement as to whether one should boycott ANSWER, why not be practical and try something new?

Posted 7:47 PM by Floyd

Here in San Mateo County, California, we have a governmental body called the Sequoia Health Care District, which I will refer to hereafter has the District. The District was created to run a hospital in Redwood City called Sequoia Hospital.

However in 1996 the Hospital was sold to Catholic Health Care West, leaving the District without a health care operation. So the District recommended to dissolve itself. Ha ha ha! I am so funny sometimes. No, of course the District kept happily collecting taxes and funding vague "programs." The District had $41 million in the bank as of June 2002. When criticized by San Mateo County Grand Jury for running an operation without a hospital, the District's vice president said the grand jury's report was "rude".

Local Libertarians got sufficiently annoyed by this to do something very rude; they formed a slate of three candidates to run as board members and dissolve the District. Only one candidate, Jack Hickey, was elected. (I have no idea what voters thought the point of that was.)

What was the District's reponse to this criticism and voter insurgency? Why of course, outreach. The District graciously condescended to mail a four-page newsletter filled with glowing descriptions of its programs: Sequoia Healthcare District Supports High Tech. Center for Domestic Violence Prevention. Sequoia Healthcare District Helps County Care for Kids. The fact that the District does not operate any health care facilities somehow failed to make it into this missive.

(I also note that while Hickey was listed as a director in the newsletter, there was no mention of his crusade to dissolve the district.)

Posted 7:32 PM by Floyd

Instapundit noted that an anti-Hugo Chavez rally in Miami drew 50,000 people, and another anti-Chavez rally in Caracas had 100,000 attendees. It's a good thing I read InstaPundit, because I would never have discovered this by reading my local newspaper. The "Nation/World" section had an article about the DC protests, and the "Local" section's top article was about the San Francisco protests. Nothing about Miami or Caracas.

Which begs the question, what is really news? Why are perpetual protests by the same locked-in-the-60s retreads worthy of newsprint? Was it really a surprise that a bunch of left-wing nincompoops rallied to protest military action? That they -- hang onto your seat before you read this -- don't like George Bush?

I would never have guessed that 50,000 people in Miami disliked a government in another hemisphere enough to stage a protest. And I would never have known, were it not for the work done by the blogging community.